Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fireinthedust" data-source="post: 5326274" data-attributes="member: 51930">Mmm, I wouldn't hold my breath.  Artificer is so WOTC/Eberron territory that creating one would risk copying it.    I think only doing classes as needed is a good idea.  Anything Paizo puts out tends to be good (though I question Cha-based Summoners, frankly; would love justification on that one); so long as they do it with artistic integrity rather than to sell books, it should be alright.  They have enough to do what they want now, so only if there's a totally new concept they've neglected should they both.I *don't* think they should do a different class for Samurai than Fighter.  It makes no sense to me.  Real Samurai were fighters, and good ones.  They could update unarmed combat maneuvers to include martial arts, but a whole new base class revolving around Samurai is too much.  Same thing for Ninja: fighters with Acrobatics, Stealth and Climb, maybe Sneak Attack, maybe bluff and poison knowledge.  Or Rogues.  Either way, it can be done without a whole new class.  WOTC's versions, btw, had really debatable powers; considering how useless many of them were, or arguable over whether or not a Ninja/Samurai would have them, I don't think they worked out.  *a* build rather than *any* build.Ok, time to sleep.I couldn't spot the blurb on converting Paladins to Antipaladins; unless they just skip over to the dark side?   Also, their touch of death power isn't as good as Channeling Negative Energy.  The Paladin can heal their allies and damage Undead, but the Antipaladin has to touch each foe?  Seems a bit unfair.  Why not just give them the same power as their evil cleric allies?  Just saying.</blockquote>

Verification